Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

# of CCP for multiple magnets and multiple screens


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 rfaucheux

rfaucheux

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 01 March 2009 - 08:54 PM

I am working on a HACCP plan for a coffee processing plant. We receive raw coffee, clean, blend, and ship to roasting facilities. My question is since we have multiple magnets in our system do I consider them all one CCP? We also have multiple screens designed to remove large items, and multiple screens designed to remove small items. Do I consider them one CCP or Multiple CCP's.

Thanks,



Thanked by 1 Member:

#2 a_andhika

a_andhika

    Generally Recognized As Sane

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 338 posts
  • 6 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Island of JaVa
  • Interests:Manga, Comics, Anime, Epic & High-tech Movies, Video Games, and CSI stuffs

Posted 02 March 2009 - 01:58 AM

Dear rfaucheux,

Welcome to the club!! ;)

May I know why do you need a multiple magnetic trap and screener? And which one goes first, the magnetic trap or the screener? The process step shall determine which step that really needed to be considered as CCP. If the screener is put on the previous step before the magnetic trap, then I think the screener should'nt be a CCP. Maybe its only a PRP, or perhaps considered as oPRP (if you are using ISO 22000:2005 standard).

For the magnetic trap, in my opinion, if there is no other process that may eliminate the presence of metal material after the magnetic trap, then I think it should be considered as CCP. And if the magnetic trap is consist of one unit with multiple traps, then I think it should be considered as one CCP. The identification of CCP is more likely to its process, not the number of the machine(s).

But if the magnetic trap was placed on different location, and if there is another process among them, then I suggest you use different process name, just like Magnetic Trap 1, Magnetic Trap 2, etc... And the CCP goes to the last Magnetic Trap.

Hope it helps you.

Regards,


Arya


Edited by a_andhika, 02 March 2009 - 11:23 AM.

IF
safety and quality means perfection
AND
nobody's perfect
THEN
why should I bother?

#3 rfaucheux

rfaucheux

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 02 March 2009 - 03:00 AM

Thanks Arya,

The magnet is the first step, followed by several screens, a magnet, etc. Our process requires redundency. The first magnet is the strongest. I wanted to consider the 3 magnets as one CCP, and the series of screens another CCP since the screens remove other hazards.

thanks,



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 15,973 posts
  • 4404 thanks
722
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:27 AM

Dear rfaucheux,

You can find various opinions on this in the literature and several other threads in this forum also.
The codex HACCP logic is that the last one of a series of specifically designed removers / performing an equivalent hazard correction / in a straight line flow is the CCP. But some people believe that the correction should “critically” be made as early as possible in the process so they often end up with multiple CCPs. (and I daresay occasionally yr "lumped" presentation also although, from memory, by definition one CCP must apply to one specific point [ unsure ]).
For the simplest flow case, you can probably validate all these choices if you search a bit but the single / ending position / CCP is the most popular currently I think (especially to the auditor tribe). Nonetheless, it is ultimately “your” HACCP Plan.

Comment about oprp in previous post only applies to the dreaded ISO 22000 of course (?)

Rgds / Charles.C

added - if you want more opinions, suggest you post a flow chart :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 a_andhika

a_andhika

    Generally Recognized As Sane

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 338 posts
  • 6 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Island of JaVa
  • Interests:Manga, Comics, Anime, Epic & High-tech Movies, Video Games, and CSI stuffs

Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:52 AM

Comment about oprp in previous post only applies to the dreaded ISO 22000 of course (?)



My bad.. my bad....
IF
safety and quality means perfection
AND
nobody's perfect
THEN
why should I bother?

#6 AS NUR

AS NUR

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 581 posts
  • 54 thanks
9
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east java, indonesia

Posted 02 March 2009 - 10:00 AM

IMO.. if you say that your process magnet --> screen ---> magnet ..etc is one process that call screen or metal trap.. you can combine as one ccp.. IMEX we have many step filter and to make it clear we only say that one process as FINAL Filtration.. and we decide the process is CCP.. Actually Final filtration contain 3 filtration process...

another option IMO.. the last treatment you can decide as ccp and the other process as OPRP..



#7 oz_cimcime

oz_cimcime

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Turkey
    Turkey

Posted 02 March 2009 - 11:20 AM

Dear rfaucheux,

I believe your decision tree will be given you a right response. If you use decision tree refered by Codex Alimentarius, it says shortly that production step is not a CCP if further step will etiminate a hazard (metal, stone etc.). I think that you consider last magnet check for CCP.

We have many metal dedectors installed throughout the production lines, but we think last metal detector is CCP.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate